Talk:Minecraft/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Creation

I just made the page because I was surprised there wasn't one already. I'm not an expert at wikis and so this article obviously needs work. I noticed also that this article was deleted before because of it being too new or something, and that's not the case now with something like 240,000 people playing. -KinoftheFlames (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Promotion Speedy Deletion

I removed the pricing and sales of the item. I'm not trying to promote the product, just give factual information. Nothing in the article tries to sell the game and whoever placed the tag on it as promotion should consider that the only marketing displayed was information about it's current and future price and its current sales.

But because apparently that information isn't allowed on wikipedia, I've removed it so the article can stay up. -KinoftheFlames (talk) 17:03, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

The last version of the article was deleted because there was no indication of notability. Even if this article is rewritten to be more encyclopedic, it will run into the same problem. It doesn't matter how many people are playing it. If it hasn't received coverage by reliable, third-party sources, it is bound to run afoul WP:N. Eik Corell (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

And that's precisely why I've gone to the next level with a proposal for deletion (a/k/a {{prod}}). - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

[Minecraft] has received coverage by reliable third-party sources, though. Actually, the deletion of the second article (which was going pretty strong up until this point) happened just after someone removed references to the Minecraft articles in PC Gamer UK and PC PowerPlay (for good reasons, so I think that's a bit of everyone's fault for just removing the references instead of fixing them, and then not working to resolve the situation after they were removed). The two articles don't seem to have any online counterparts, but scans of the articles can be found here (PC Gamer UK issue 204) and here (PC Powerplay, unknown issue), to show that they're definitely there. More articles can be found at Rock, Paper, Shotgun here and here, and an interview with the developer about making Minecraft on Gamasutra is here, plus a review for the game at Jay Is Games here. Also, if need be, I can try to rewrite the current article to fix writing issues and grammar issues, and try to make it more encyclopedic in tone, but I'm almost certain that this topic is notable enough to warrant an entry in Wikipedia. --Joshua.giles (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Article

This article is just like a Zombie! Keeps getting deleted and coming back from the dead! At any rate, I do feel the need for this article to be here. I know I myself have gone searching for it a few times both before it was deleted and after.

We really need to find some more sources for this. This game has to be notable in some way, if we all work together I'm sure we can research enough and find the sources we need! :D --Jaryth000 (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Well if Dwarf Fortress is considered a "noteworthy" article when only 7 out of 17 sources are NOT coming from the developer's website and of which only 4 are credible, then Minecraft only needs 4 as well. Especially considering how similar the games are (both small production value, indie developers, huge fanbase, in alpha). ---- I'm very unpleased on how some articles on wikipedia are marked for deletion primarily because they have little information on the page. I mean if someone wrote 1000 words for this article it would only be marked as lacking sources, not lacking notability. - KinoftheFlames (talk) 07:28, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

--

-Well, I'm really not sure how note worthy the Team Fortress 2 blog is, but even still They've posted a story about they're enjoyment of Minecraft: http://www.teamfortress.com/post.php?id=4130 --Jaryth000 (talk) 07:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

-Another one: http://www.pcgamer.com/2010/07/29/community-heroes-notch-for-minecraft/ --Jaryth000 (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

PlayThisThing.com has featured Minecraft twice now (and also dwarf fortress), if there's really any doubt about it's noteworthiness. I'm mildly surprised that the fiasco where paypal froze up $750,000 dollars going to the developer isn't mentioned in the article. That made the new rounds a while ago with plenty of sources. Also, $750,000 dollars for a freaking ALPHA! 206.196.158.130 (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"his desire to rip off Infiniminer resulted in the development of Minecraft. The developer did have other ideas for video games, but it's hard to say no to "innovating" an open source codebase" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.192.14.73 (talk) 09:05, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Crafting and Block diagrams

The block diagrams and crafting recipe diagrams from the miniwiki that was removed yesterday should be added to the main page or added to a link please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.195.31.214 (talk) 17:52, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't know what you mean by miniwiki (minecraftwiki?) but crafting instructions are gameguide content and so not appropriate for an encyclopedia like WP. Minecraftwiki.net is down, but the google cache says that the crafting info was still up this morning. --PresN 18:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Link to Crafting Recipes http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Crafting —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.189.3.230 (talk) 00:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Famous overnight

Shouldn't we mention the overnight run to stardom made by Minecraft in the past 2 weeks? 89.114.56.249 (talk) 21:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

WHAT is this game about?

Could someone add a good description defining the genre and the goals of play in this game? All this Alpha vs. Classic mode is very confusing. The description should be "Game is very simple in that an avatar is walking around that can collect (mine) blocks, to later place them in a different spot". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drozdyuk (talk • contribs) 02:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There are three game modes, Alpha Survival and Classic Creative and Survival. As it says alpha is the mode where you can mine and such, while Survival Classic is a free early version of Alpha Survival, and Creative Classic is a free game mode where you can build stuff without being attacked by mobs, or without having to mine. So everything is basically in the article already. Shrimp3000 (talk) 04:41, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Yea, I still don't get the point. Even watching the trailer, I'm not sure what the point is. A friend posted the link to Facebook, I'm not sure what the point is. I came here to maybe be informed what the objective or point of playing is. I did not find that. ClintJCL (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a sandbox game. There isn't necessarily a single set goal. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Even if there isn't a single set goal, some sort of description of "game play" should be possible. I've read the article, and all I know is that it is a "building simulator" (whatever that is) with "crafting" (whatever that is) and "monsters" (which do what?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.199.113 (talk) 01:33, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

'Building simulator' = You create buildings out of blocks, along with other contraptions. 'Crafting' = You make things, like swords, armor, food. 'Monsters' = Just like most other games, they attack and try to kill you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I came to this page because I was reading a blog entry making a comparison to Minecraft. Apart from "it's a sort of strategy game", I have no idea what it's like so I decided to check Wikipedia. The end result: apart from the screenshots, I am none the wiser. This article absolutely fails to explain what the game is about to someone who has no idea about it. Come on, someone who plays this game, write it? Just something short, even if it's really glossing over stuff. Think Elevator pitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.39.49 (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Please sign your comments. I would try to make this clearer but I'm not sure how. As a player, I read this, I don't understand how much clearer it can be. The article covers many elements of the game. If you're looking for a plot or a "goal" for the game, the answer is simply that there isn't one. ferret (talk) 12:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Nobody is asking for the goal of the game, but simply for a descriptive explanation of what playing the game entails. Right now, there isn't one--as osmeone who has never played the game, I have read the article and still have no idea how the game is played. Surely a description of gameplay that does not rely on gamer jargon is possible, and more warranted than the lengthy discussion of game development. 38.98.181.23 (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Reading the article over really quickly, and being as verbose as I am, under the heading Minecraft#Gameplay, I can see no other way to make this article more specific as to what playing the game entails. You build stuff, you destroy stuff, you hunt, you craft, you die, you get revived with an empty inventory. Any more verbose and we are quickly violating WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMECRUFT. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 22:48, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps the section is just poorly written then. 38.98.181.23 (talk) 23:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I re-worded it a bit. Any better? ^Jguy_Talk^Done 15:27, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

The gameplay section still came out too verbose with a bit too many details (such as, time length) and some original research. And most importantly never actually describing the "blocky" nature of the game.

I took the liberty to rewrite it to the style most video game article I've seen use. First of all, an intro for gameplay -- that this game is abput construction; that world is basically cube blocks; that player gathers and places these. Then Beta section explains the details of Beta gameplay -- that you spawn in the world, you gather resources, make items, then mobs and animals spawn, you fight, and get hurt/heal. Finally the remainder about Redstone, chunks, and modding. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 19:44, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks H3llkn0wz, that looks a lot better. A cookie should be on the menu for you soon. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 20:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There are jillions of examples and whatnot available. Ignore the trolls.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.3.233.60 (talk • contribs) 15:37, January 27, 2011 UTC

Registered users / Purchases

I suggest after the registered users reaching a million, we stop with the daily updates of the total and just change the sentence to "over a million users and a quarter of a million purchases" or similar.

There's no reason to continually grab the numbers from the site, it seems a little markety. ferret (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Eik Corell (talk) 19:58, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree. The sales are quite unusual and remarkable. --Profero (talk) 13:19, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to mirror their site on a daily basis, give an appropriate "over a million" and leave the reference to the stat page if someone wants to see the real time count. As for unusual or remarkable, to argue that point I think we'd need a source making the same claim. Otherwise its personal opinion. However ferret (talk) 13:42, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps I'm too personally impressed. However, The Independent is too: "Six months later, the daily figure for paid downloads is passing 10,000 and total sales are over 270,000. All that for something that's available as a free browser-based game that isn't even finished." But it's perhaps not that important for WP. Just leaving a link to the stat page is perhaps sufficient. --Profero (talk) 14:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Mention of sales (i.e. registered users and purchases) is important for this indie game; exact numbers are not (i.e. "over 250 000" vs. "252 178"). The sales figure on the main website (as primary source) is sufficient for the numbers themselves.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:45, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

As the following reference link, at this time, does not reflect the actual status: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minecraft#cite_note-usercount-8 from http://www.webcitation.org/ I wonder if it's properly used. --Profero (talk) 19:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the intention was to show at which point the user count surpassed 1M. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

The reference ought to verify what is currently specified in the article. Profero (talk) 09:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

That's because someone updated the stats without updating the reference. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:22, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

article from Wired

[1] --MASEM (t) 13:03, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Minecraft vs. Cube/Cube 2

Do... Do people not know about Cube or Cube 2? I really don't see why Minecraft is so popular in comparison...  — SheeEttin {T/C} 19:40, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, seeing as one is a sandbox building game with survival elements, and one is an FPS/3d engine, I don't see what they have to do with one another. --PresN 20:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Cube features a built-in map editor, which bares very thin similarities with how Minecraft world is made. They are, however, almost completely different in other aspects. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that this page is not a place to discuss the subject in general. It is a place to discuss changes to and improvement of the article. What it is more popular there and if that should or shouldn't be is irrelevant to the discussions going on here.--Crossmr (talk) 10:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if the games had been very similar, and reliable sources had made this comparison, it would most likely warrant an inclusion in reception. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can actually provide sources that have done that, discussing it here is irrelevant. See WP:FORUM.--Crossmr (talk) 16:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I was not the one who initiated this discussion, I merely replied to the initiator. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:03, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:FORUM applies to everyone, not just someone who starts a discussion.--Crossmr (talk) 00:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Halloween update and In game mobs

I believe it may be appropriate to make note of the update that Markus has promised to be released just prior to halloween. It would suit the end of the "development" section. I also believe that a new section should be added detailing the types of mobs in the game and also discontinued/future mobs including rana and ghasts. There is conciderable detail that could be added to this article however due to the games "alpha" status, many details have not been confirmed. I believe that the 2 points I have suggested adding here will help towards a better description of this game. -Legosheep 00:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is relevant. Most game articles do not document every patch a game has received to-date, even if it is a major patch. I don't see how this is any different. Even then, it would need to meet WP:N, in regards to reliable sources commenting about it, and be given the correct amount of weight.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. When it gets added, we'll throw in the features that change the game, like hell world, into the gameplay section, but there's no need to keep a running commentary on what is upcoming in the game. A good rule of thumb is to imagine you were reading the article 2 years from now- would it make sense then to have a whole section on one update? If not, then what you're doing is giving more weight to things just because they're recent. --PresN 23:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Actual mob/level/feature changes are unnecessary. No sources are available to give significant weight to this particular update. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

On this note I wonder why the Halloween update is listed on equal foot with classic and alpha in the infobox? It's hardly that significant. I think Classic, Alpha, Beta and Retail are the only release dates that might be of interest to the general non-playing reader. --77.215.75.103 (talk) 18:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Infiniminer

Can someone please change the Infiniminer to Infiniminer As there is now a page for it. Juanmelk (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

No. The article you just created will be deleted soon as it does not meet our standards of notability.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:29, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually. This was already done on 17 October, but the person who added the link simply didn't reply here. Although I agree that it's not notable, the article still exists and should remain linked until the deletion discussion ends in deletion/redirection. Reach Out to the Truth 21:57, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Use of the word infinite in the alpha section

"Alpha allows for a nearly infinite horizontal playing world" - There is a difference between massive and infinite —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.138.197.13 (talk) 01:39, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The max world size has also been scaled down to something around 1.4 times the size of the earth I think as part of the Halloween update. Don't have a source for it though. 68.48.139.101 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

The world size is now about 6.2 times the size of Earth. (In area, not volume) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.131.128 (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for this? I don't see any recent google results with "6.2". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:25, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the creator has said in his blog that it is 8 times the surface area of the earth. http://notch.tumblr.com/post/443693773/the-world-is-bigger-now --68.94.204.87 (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

That was a year ago. It seems there's some doubt as to the actual size now? The article currently says it's "nearly infinitely large", which I think is fine. Whether it's really eight times the size of Earth, 1.4 times or 6.2 times, few people are likely to ever reach that limit. Reach Out to the Truth 03:50, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

in a tumblr post yesterday, notch gave some clarification on world limits. i've added the direct quote in a footnote for clarification. Kaini (talk) 22:51, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic is wrong

The information on classic is wrong. There is no survival mode. That's only in Alpha. Also, Alpha does have multiplayer. The "gameplay" section needs serious editing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Admiral Pancake (talk • contribs) 03:25, November 6, 2010

Classic survival, Forum post.

Also, "Alpha and Classic, both with single-player and multiplayer options." and "Alpha features a survival game mode with single and multiplayer variants." — alpha is mentioned as having multiplayer. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:03, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add, there IS a free survival mode. it's here: http://www.minecraft.net/survivaltest/ This is NOT alpha, but is a free early survival mode.--78.145.107.241 (talk) 18:27, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Manic0892, 26 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}} Please change information under "Classic," as the Classic mode does not appear to actually contain any survival elements in either singleplayer or multiplayer. Only the alpha a.k.a. survival mode contains survival elements. Classic is wholly creative a.k.a. unlimited blocks and no survival elements. Please ignore this. I have since found what the article was discussing.

Manic0892 (talk) 10:55, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

See the thread above. Classic does have a survival test mode. It is no longer updated/supported, but it's there. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

PayPal freezing

{{edit semi-protected}} In Development, the article states that "Plans for Persson's new company were delayed by weeks when his account with PayPal was frozen without reason containing over $763,000 USD in proceeds from Minecraft sales." Firstly that is phrased poorly and instead should read "Plans for Persson's new company were delayed by weeks when his account with PayPal, containing over $763,000 USD in proceeds from Minecraft sales, was frozen without reason." Secondly, http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/09/10/paypal-freezes-minecraft-devs-600k-euros/ states that Paypal's reason for freezing the account was, to quote, "a suspicious withdrawal or deposit."

Therefore the entry should read "Plans for Persson's new company were delayed by weeks when his account with PayPal, containing over $763,000 USD in proceeds from Minecraft sales, was frozen due to a suspicious withdrawal or deposit."

Manic0892 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done Changed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

DDoS Attack

{{edit semi-protected}} Article does not mention the DDOS attacks that occurred before the Halloween update. Info at http://kotaku.com/5669766/minecraft-under-siege-by-angry-addicts-demanding-more-updates and from Notch at http://notch.tumblr.com/page/3 (near the bottom of the page under heading "The DDoS attack continues, I’ll just get back to coding, then."

Perhaps: "On October 20, 2010, the site minecraft.net suffered a DDoS attack by a group of purported Minecraft users who were unsatisfied with the number of updates for Minecraft and wished to "send Notch a clear message of how the future of minecraft will turn out unless he gets to work, namely by influencing the amount of sales taking place, due to the attacks." They then demanded that he "start providing your customers with the updates that you promise them." In response, Notch obtained a DDoS protection service and switched to a new hosting provider."

Manic0892 (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

The article did mention the DDoS attack before, but it was removed as insignificant fact. I suppose one could say it was a milestone in the development. However, the Kotaku article is speculating and making assumptions based on 4chan post. All of this is clearly original research. Almost a paragraph on the issue gives an undue weight for this event. I added the note that this happened, however mentioning that the group that allegedly did this posted on 4chan about this seems like a stretch by miles from verifiable info. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the DDOS is notable. Yeah, it's a fact, and it's verifiable to a reliable source, but it's not notable. Eik Corell (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's been a lot of reporting on this. They all are short on details, [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] etc., but everyone thinks it's notable in real world terms, so it is most likely notable in WP terms. We are only including 1 sentence anyway, without speculative details. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

4Chan.org

Shouldn't we mention that 4chan.org's /v/ made Minecraft go viral? Habbitus (talk) 23:56, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable secondary source for this? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 00:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's one from gamasutra but sadly it's implied. Habbitus (talk) 00:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately speculative "4Chan have taken a liking to" will most likely not be considered a notable event. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:34, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I don`t really think that we need to say anything about how the game got so popular, or else you could list tons of websites and people that haved talked about Minecraft resulting in a lot of people starting to play it (for example, a lot of people started playing after Davidr64yt ("X") made a video on YouTube, as well as many other people and websites, so it might get out of hand and I don't think that it's that important for the article). Xxcom9a (talk) 23:09, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally it was Penny-Arcade for me. It's ultimately word-of-mouth and I doubt you can really say "4chan did it." ferret (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

See #Advertising below. Kotaku has now mentioned that the game had no publisher support, no paid ads, and got popular through word of mouth. No speculation on which sites exactly though. Agree with Xxcom9a that ultimately we could argue for a dozen of websites/videos that significantly contributed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Minecraft won an award

On the 5th of December, Minecraft won the award for "Best downloadable game or 2010" on Good Game, by the ABC network. The podcast is on iTunes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2kanman (talk • contribs) 15:34, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Added info to the article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 15:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

incorrect word or something

In the "reception" section, at the end it states, "In December 2010, Good Game pronounced Minecraft as their choice for "Best Downloadable Game of 2010" title.".

It should be ".... Good Game announced Minecraft ....", not ".... Good Game pronounced Minecraft...." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.174.205.246 (talk) 17:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

"Announce" would imply they may not be the originators of the award title. Like a news source would announce, for a hypothetical example, that Half Life 2 was given the best title of 2008 by IGN. "Pronounce" on the other hand unambiguously implies that the Good Game themselves chose this award title. That was the reasoning behind it, anyway. Rephrased the sentence. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Classic does NOT contain survival

Minecraft classic contains Creative only, not Survival mode. I made a small edit to this effect a short while ago and it has been reverted. Why?

I have just double checked this on the site, you CANNOT play survival mode with the classic version.

Chipyy (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I thought I provided a clear link to the section above – #Classic is wrong – in the edit summary. Classic did have a survival mode. It was separate from alpha. You used to have 20 TNT and arrows and it did have mobs. It is no longer available though since recently, but it was there. See a forum post and Minepedia entry that explains this better. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:28, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

It was there before Beta. Xxcom9a (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Beta conversion

The article is roughly done, but there are several flaws here and there. I'm trying to smooth it out. Jeremjay24 18:32, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Minecraft screenshots available in Commons

File:Minecraft alpha.png

A screenshot of Minecraft Alpha 1.2.0_01

File:Minecraft beta version 1 0 2.png

A screenshot of Minecraft Beta 1.0.2

There are now several Minecraft screenshots available in Commons:Category:Screenshots of Minecraft, some thumbnails are at the right. Please note I tried (in vain) to use an image redirect for the Beta 1.0.17 04 image at [7] because the English Wikipedia has local image File:Minecraft.png which is hiding the Commons image. All the revisions of that local image are now at Commons so hopefully a passing admin will soon delete the superfluous local file. -84user (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2010 (UTC) fixes -84user (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello, did I hear someone calling my name? As a side note- please, people, take interesting screenshots! A lot of the ones that get uploaded are just a shot of someone standing on a beach. The current one is alright, at least it shows biomes. --PresN 19:13, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Minecraft avatar heard your plea and risked zombies and creepers to make a few screenshots, specific to the Beta changes: tooltips and leaf de-spawning bugfix. What else would be useful? I'll also try to capture the egg-throwing "function" Beta added, together with the sudden chicken "hatching". -84user (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Eh, no I think we're good. Even with free screenshots we don't need to go overboard. Three is about the max in my opinion, and I think 2 survival gameplay and 1 classic gameplay are good. The inventory screens are a nice touch, since we didn't have anything that showed that, and I've replaced the alpha screenshot with that.

On an unrelated note, should we drop the "version" section from the infobox? It honestly doesn't seem to matter- you can't download anything but the latest version, afterall, and WP isn't really the place to note when Notch updates- that's what his blog and the auto-updater is for. We already note major version changes like the move to Beta in-text. Alright, I talked myself into it, I'm going to chop it out. --PresN 04:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

It was becoming a pain to update every time Notch released a (minor) update anyways. Xxcom9a (talk) 14:58, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

But.. but.. what will anons do now? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:36, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it seemed fairly useless to have. --JeevanJones (talk) 20:00, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it was inevitable until someone readded them. I trimmed it to "1.1 (Beta)" and left a comment to not specify small versions, like 1.1_01 or whatnot. This is the main game version. Disregarding Classic as that is not maintained and I left a 0.3 version note in prose. Also not specifying server versions, as those are supplementary software to the game, most game have such, public or otherwise. In any case, I agree with trimming the version field, but I prefer to leave a single version number; after all that's why we have the field. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:00, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Seems good. Xxcom9a (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Categorization

Would Category:Survival video games be appropriate? (I will add it tomorrow if there are no objections) 74.242.198.200 (talk) 00:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There's such a category? I suppose it could equally be an adventure or RP game at the same time, though... —JeevanJones (talk) 22:59, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it is much more survival that RP or adventure. If the latter need the players to RP or make adventures themselves, the survival is a "built-in" factor, i.e. you are generally going to die outside if you don't take action that increases your survival chance. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:07, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

How about Category:Video games with voxel graphics? I'd add it myself, but the page is locked... 93.104.129.158 (talk) 11:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:07, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Advertising

Would it be worth noting that this game has absolutely no advertising at the moment besides word of mouth? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.131.128 (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

It probably is, though I don't see many references directly supporting this. Added this to prose. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Influence on other games

Manic Digger a open source game with similar style, coding in C# rather than Java. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.43.246 (talk) 09:22, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If any reliable video gaming sources write an article on Minecraft's influence on other games, this can be included. For the time being media hasn't given much attention to this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Bad Security Certificates

Browsers (IE7, Chrome & Firefox) all report bad security certificates when MineCraft is downloaded & installed from www.minecraft.net. The certificates in question are out of date (expired Jan 2007 - 4 years ago). The first one appears to erroneously be for Netscape despite the warning being for a minecraft-specific module. Some users have described Trojan Horse virus problems on minecraft forums - an issue that might reasonably be associated with bad certificates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.29.40.219 (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is not proper information that can/should be included in the article's material. Trivial issues and support problems is not suitable for a Wikipedia article. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 21:03, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Version

Since I cannot edit this page, I will say it here. It is no longer version 1.2 . It is now 1.2_02 . Please correct this! Minecraftrules (talk) (P.S. Yes, it's a major difference) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Minecraftrules (talk • contribs) 14:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Small numerical updates like .02, .03 are not to be added. WHen it goes from 1.2 to 1.3, that can be updated. Eik Corell (talk) 14:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. This was discussed couple threads above. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 18:20, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we ignore "developmental" builds (like this) until Notch/Mojang decide about "nightly" builds (and decide if we should update the page with Nightly's or just use the latest publicly released build)? I figured that it'd be easier to just update for public builds but I thought I'd bring it up anyways. Xxcom9a (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

the consensus seems to be pretty clear; an update from 1.2 to 1.3 deserves a mention. an update from 1.2_01 to 1.2_02 does not. my take on things is that sticking with this policy even when developer builds become available is desirable; otherwise the version number in the article could become problematic to manage. Kaini (talk) 01:42, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Ditto. There is no real encyclopaedic value in updating every nightly version -- they are nightly after all. There are articles where the version is kept as current as possible (like OpenTTD), but it seems here the consensus is against. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:02, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

UK magazine

can be used as a reference. This article is too short. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.51.162.117 (talk) 13:37, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What UK magazine? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

i believe the anon is talking about PC Gamer magazine. Kaini (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

What about the Obsidian Block? Minecraftrules (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

that actually looks really interesting! but i'm not so sure if it would make WP:RS Kaini (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the only magazine DEDICATED to Minecraft I know of. Minecraftrules (talk) 03:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

it's not in print; i'm afraid as far as WP:RS is concerned i could point you to crafthub, minecraft workbench, or pc gamer's minecraft experiment blog - they are, more or less, equivalent in wiki's interpretation of things (in fact the PC gamer blog would probably rank as a more reliable source). Kaini (talk) 03:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, why the hell do we have this page if the Minecraft Wiki covers EVERYTHING in-depth? Minecraftrules (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia and Minecraftwiki are not related. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia about all notable topics; Minecraftwiki is an in-depth coverage of all aspects of the Minecraft-related material. Many video games have dedicated Wikis, that doesn't mean their Wikipedia page is useless. There are around 15k visitors to this page per day. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 14:26, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

also wikipedia is not a how-to; things like crafting recipes have no place here. this article's focus is a basic description of what the game is, and a history of its development. Kaini (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

screenshot of the nether

File:Minecraft netherscreenshot2.png

A screenshot of 'The Nether' from Minecraft version 1.3

a screenshot of the nether (replacing one of the existing ones) might be a nice thing to have in the article. just though i'd mention it to gauge other editors opinions - thoughts? Kaini (talk) 23:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

One is of Beta, one is of Classic, one is of crafting screen. We need to keep both Beta and Classic as the two gameplay modes, and possibly use Beta screenshot with more features. The crafting screen demonstrates the unique item making mechanic. So I reckon 4th screenshot? —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 23:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

sounds good, with perhaps a bit of a layout tweak so it's not too cluttered. i'll take one, upload, and post to the talk page! Kaini (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

okay, this is my candidate - it shows lightstone, netherrack, lava lakes, and the distinctive nether look. i will, however, need to change the licensing to match the other shots - it's non-free/FUR at the moment (d'oh!) Kaini (talk) 00:35, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Minecraft screenshots are in public domain. The screenshot doesn't have a single ghast/pigmen though, and ghasts are the core part Nether. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:05, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

d'oh! i play on an SMP server and usually peaceful on single-player. okay, i've uploaded a second, hopefully better shot. Kaini (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

that one looks much better ;) ^Jguy_Talk^Done 04:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

ok, added (as an aside, it really pops when compared to the pastoral look of the screenshots of 'regular' minecraft world)! Kaini (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Video

Perhaps this article should have a video of the gameplay, since video is also free use? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:14, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Innacuracy in difference between beta and classic

"Classic" and "Beta" are not different modes, they are different versions of the same game, Classic is 0.30 and the Beta is currently 1.3_01. Beta will eventually include "Creative Mode" (which is the only gametype in Classic) and beta also has a "Survival" game mode (which is currently the only one). Survival IS NOT BETA, there WILL be more gametypes in Beta and forward, whereas Classic will simply remain a free, yet outdated version of Minecraft. This should be fixed. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Right now Classic only has creative mode, and Beta only has survival. When that changes, the sections can be reworded, but as of now Mojang hasn't started working on different game modes for Classic or for Beta. --PresN 17:22, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Classic USED to have survival though (it was called "Survival Test"), this should be stated in that section. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is already called "variants" not "modes" in gameplay: "Minecraft has two currently available variants, Beta and Classic". Fixed lead as well. And Classic survival is already in the article: "The Classic was then split into single-player survival mode (referred to as "Survival Mode Test")". —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 18:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Popular culture

i think this page deserves an “in popular culture” section so would like to see if other editors would like this idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Connor mezza (talk • contribs) 08:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Have there actually been any references from pop cultural works (films, TV-shows, non-gimmick music etc.) to Minecraft? Has there even been enough time for something like that to have popped up since Minecraft gained popularity? Obviously if there is, the article should mention them, but first we need sources and remember that it doesn't qualify as pop-culture if it's obscure or only aimed at a gimmick audience. Or-whatever (talk) 15:23, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Anything of the sort would need to go as prose in a "legacy", or more likely "reception and legacy" section, not an "in popular culture" morass of bullet points. --PresN 16:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 801tow, 31 March 2011

1.4 is the new version of minecraft. the version hasn't been updated yet. --801tow (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC) 801tow (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to update this right now. Thanks for the heads-up! elektrikSHOOS 17:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Kaini (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Spiders

it says "Hostile mobs such as spiders, zombies, and skeletons can spawn in darkness" it should say "Hostile mobs such as giant spiders, zombies, and skeletons can spawn in darkness". 66.59.49.88 (talk) 14:29, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "large"; "giant" implies extremely large, definitely larger than the player. The comma before "such as" is also required, as these examples are not exhaustive and not crucial to the meaning. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:24, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

New Menu Screen

As of this post, the description says the menu screenshot is 1.3, when it is clearly 1.4 in the picture itself. Hopefully somone with editing rights will fix this? 165.199.1.30 (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

He's right. I can't unfortunately. It should either show the old 1.3 logo, with the 1.4 menu, or remove the lone logo, and show the 1.4 menu, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Croben (talk • contribs) 15:38, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

the menu is identical, to my eyes (unless you're using a texture pack that alters it?). what is different? Kaini (talk) 16:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

The article is correct now, both the logo and menu are 1.4, the "1.3" typo was fixed. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:19, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Some cache must have been messed up; the menu image was updated before the logo image was- see the file history. They've matched since the 31st. --PresN 17:21, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

That was my bad, when I adjusted that, my cache hadn't cleared and I saw the 1.3 menu. Good thing it's been fixed. elektrikSHOOS 18:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, the Version needs to be updated. It should be 1.4_01. Croben (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

There's been previous consensus that only major updates, e.g. 1.3 or 1.4, should be updated. elektrikSHOOS 20:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ahh, ok. Thanks. Croben (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

recent update

Minecraft is not in Beta 1.4 anymore, it is now in Beta 1.4_01, can someone update the page to reflect this? 66.59.49.88 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

See the post directly above. The consensus is to only list major versions.—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Oh, Thanks for telling me. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 12:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

update timing

there was an update preview video on the Mojang AB youtube channel, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0wXBNR0Wy8&feature=channel_video_title .Should we mention the new features now or wait until it is released? --mezza (talk) 10:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Released. --PresN 18:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Time to recover dropped items after death?

I'm not sure of the sentence "The items can be recovered if the player reaches them in time.". It does not state the amount of time, though I was not sure how to ask for an addition. I was going to add _{[How much time?]} to the end of the sentence, but I was not sure if that was appropriate.

Also, and slightly off topic, I made a change to add falling to the ways you can take damage. Please let me know if there were any errors with adding that, or in the wording. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 07:55, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, it's all ranging on WP:GAMECRUFT trivia. It used to say both "from long drops" and "after 5 minutes". It also used to say how long day/night was, for example. Having no plot, Beta gameplay section has outgrown the usual video game article gameplay section length. Most of the material is meant to illustrate a point with examples, rather than list all possible ones or give precise details. P.S. you can use {{clarify|reason=how long?}} for cases like this. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:10, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, what you've said the article used to say in it, I still think should say. I guess it can remain how it is, however, and we'll see what happens. In the end, it's fine either way. Also, Thanks for that last little tidbit about clarification. I'm back on Wikipedia more often as of recently, so I'm having to relearn everything little by little. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 09:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

It looks like someone removed the 'falling' part because it was mentioned earlier in the sentence, though I don't know if it should be mentioned in the parentheses (as "environmental damage") or not. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 04:56, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Infiniminer and minetest

Please could editors not revert so fast. I did not see anything wrong with the redlinking of Infiniminer, that is how wikipedia invites editors to create new articles. The fact that the article was speedied should not change the redlink. I am re-instating the redlink pending a more relaxed and considered approach to its fate. See my recent contributions for today to follow the two related undelete requests I have made. Remember, :redlinks are not evil. -84user (talk) 13:54, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I forgot it now redirects to Minecraft, so I cannot redlink it. I will wait for the deleted article to be restored so it can be properly considered. -84user (talk) 13:58, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

The article was changed to a redirect after an afd. If you can find the appropriate sources to establish notability (Seperate from Minecraft), that would be great. I don't think infiniminer was actually redlinked though. It was changed to a link after an editor removed the redirect and restored the deleted article, and became redlinked when the article was redeleted by speedy, then subsequently restored to a redirect. ferret (talk) 14:42, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What AFD? Ah I found it here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infiniminer. This has been most confusing, especially as the history did not mention this. I feel the close should have been the suggested redirect instead of complete delete to avoid all this, however. The deleted Infinimer article has now been userfied at User:84user/Infiniminer. I have restored the redirect to Minecraft#Development for now but I am at a loss as to how to restore the history to the redirect. The process is too frustrating so I will give up. Someone else can ask an adminstrator for assistance. Meanwhile, please see if there's anything in this revision that can be merged, even if it's just a inline reference. -84user (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

there was significant edit-warring and POV-pushing both here and at the infiniminer article last night by User:Kirov Airship, who recreated the article; that's why the AfD isn't visible in the history - it's an old AfD for an old version of the article. to be honest, i think you'll have a problem finding enough sources to establish notability for the article. Kaini (talk) 15:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't forget the days back from the first years of Wikipedia where there were more red links than blue links. Red links a good and ok and must. --Kirov Airship (talk) 22:50, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

true, however it needs to be balanced. as a general guideline only the first instance of a wikilink in an article should be linked; for very long articles that guideline can be bent, but the WP:MOS adherence of this article could do with a bit of cleanup. Kaini (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Content suggestion

I think that somewhere on this page, this should be included "Although most of the monsters in minecraft are traditional to fantasy fiction. there are a few deviations, such as the Ghast, a large flying jellyfish-like creature. and the Creeper, a tall quadrupedal creature that attacks by kamikaze." 66.59.49.88 (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

No, you have to remember that Notch lives in Sweden, and would likely never heard of it. 76.186.142.115 (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Without a reputable source, it's original research. Even with a source, it's hard for me to say that it's not just a piece of trivia. —LOL ^T/_C 02:34, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Most? I just looked at the minecraft wiki (http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Mobs), and, of the hostile mobs (Zombie, Skeleton, Spider, Spider Jockey, Creeper, Slime, Ghast), only 3 (Zombie, Skeleton, Slime) could be considered emblematic to fantasy fiction. (I'd class the Spider along with the passive mobs, which are, basically, regular animals.) So you're down to about half of the hostile mobs, even if you include the spider. This is hardly enough to base a generalized statement on. This falls apart even further when you expand the base to include the non-hostile mobs, virtually none of which are associated with fantasy fiction. Petronivs (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

"Although some of the monsters in minecraft are traditional to fantasy fiction. there are many deviations, such as the Ghast, a large flying jellyfish-like creature. and the Creeper, a tall quadrupedal creature that attacks by kamikaze."SillyWriter (talk) 22:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

minecraft 1.5_1

Hey, sorry to barge in, but the version number is slightly outdated. 1.5_1 is out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.154.33.140 (talk) 06:58, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Per previous discussion, we only update major version 1.4, 1.5, etc. Although seeing how often this comes up, I am not sure anymore if we shouldn't update minor too. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:34, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm still against it, somewhat. As previously pointed out, we don't do it to many other softwares/games/development projects on Wikipedia, why should we start here? Noth is very good at managing his releases (somewhat), actually using a version change or adding new features and minor versions for fixing bugs. bug fixes shouldn't be part of a version, imo. Besides, there have been times where Notch has pushed out 3 or 4 minor updates in one day, it's bound to happen sometime again. ^Jguy_Talk^Done 13:22, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Not Updated

I am new so i cant edit this page so will someone do this for me. It says that the beta version is 1.5 but it is 1.5_01. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrkrew01 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

as per consensus, we do not add minor version numbers. Kaini (talk) 00:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Lava vs. Magma

I agree with H3llkn0wz's edit to the page which changed "falling into lava" to "falling into magma", because technically it is correct..in a realistic sense. In this game, however, the actual blocks are referred to as "lava" blocks, nomatter their location. At this point, I don't know which one would be correct; what it's called in real life, or what it's call in-game. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 08:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Changed to "magma or lava" to avoid clarifications. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Technically, the game also doesn't call trees "trees" -- it's "wood" and "leaves" blocks arranged in a certain pattern; yet we assume so to better convey the meaning because they look the same and there is no tangible reason to think otherwise. Saying "lava" without clarifying that the word is usually used incorrectly in-game, would be implying all lava in Minecraft is above surface. Saying "falling into magma, which is referred to as "lava" in-game whether it is above or below surface." would be excessive trivia. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 09:42, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't believe it needs a long, drawn out sentence like that. I just believe that the change was trivial. - Bkid ^{My talk}/_Contribs 10:27, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

I believe that the ordering of the names in the current revision should be reversed, as although technically most of the lava encountered in Minecraft is Magma, it is simply called Lava by both the fanbase, the game files, and Notch himself. 66.59.49.88 (talk) 16:53, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is. But for a general reader, which is what Wikipedia is aimed at, that would not be obvious without further explanation. Fictional work has to be written about from a real-world perspective. Hence either 1) the mention of magma (as in the article) or 2) a lengthy explanation (as above not included for obvious reasons). I guess we can switch the words around, although that would not change the meaning in any way. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:28, 29 April 2011 (UTC)